Coffs Harbour Cultural and Civic Space

I object to the proposed Cultural Centre to be build on land in Gordon Street Coffs Harbour on the following grounds.
When the Civic Centre was demolished under a land transfer deal the Cultural Centre was to be built on land gifted at City Hill and was to accommodate a performing space to replace the demolished Civic Centre.
The proposed Cultural Centre in Gordon Street does not have a performing space but includes Council office space and Chamber rooms. By including Council rooms it does not allow for applying for Government grants to cover part of the construction costs.
The current Council offices, when built, allowed for the provision of an additional floor to be built on top of the existing building if more space was required for Council staff. The new offices for Council staff in the proposed new building are smaller than the existing office spaces. The proposed building has parking spaces for only 75 cars which would be all used by Council staff. Parking in Gordon St is already difficult. The car park behind the proposed building is used by CBD workers and shoppers and does not offer viable parking for a building this size.
The proposed building will not generate any income as the Art Gallery, Library and Museum are free to enter so the cost of maintaining the building will be worn by the ratepayers. So far a petition with over 15,000 signatures has been presented to State Parliament objecting to this development.
Council plans on selling Rigby House, the existing Council Chamber and the existing Museum building(this building being Heritage Listed) to offset some of the construction costs. However the CBD has a high rate of vacant shops and office space and it remains to be seen if these assets will sell at the cost the Council is expecting.
The Mayor of Coffs Harbour used her casting vote to approve the development as voting by Councillors was tied.
The DA before Council for the demolition of the existing buildings in Gordon St should be postponed until the outcome of all submissions have been examined.

2019
PLEASE DO/DO NOT DELETE NAME J.R.Ingham……………………
MY PERSONAL INFORMATION BEFORE ADDRESS35 35 Pitt Square………………………
PUBLICATION OF THIS SUBMISSION

………21st………October
ATTENTION: DIRECTOR – KEY SITE ASSESSMENTS

PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT,
GPO BOX 39,
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Director,

State Significant Development Application Number SSD-10300.
Coffs Harbour Cultural and Civic Space.

I object to this proposal and desire and request that a public hearing be held.

The reasons why I object to this proposal are:

1.The location of the building being in a commercial part of the CBD and restricted access to open landscaping or parkland.

2.The location of the building on a street other than a major road linking the CBD to other significant parts of the Local Government Area.

3.The 3 storey element creating the need for costly expenditure on such things as lifts, fire stairs, formwork, scaffolding, cranes and external maintenance and cleaning.

4.Inadequate parking internally and externally.

5.Congestion of travel modes to and from and within the vicinity of the development.

6.It is not in the public interest as it is not economically sustainable providing for unnecessary office space for Council staff and does not provide for the best and highest use of public land.

7.It provides for unnecessary office space for Council and therefore fails to meet an objective of the B3 Commercial Core Zone to ‘provide a suitable land use that serves the needs of the local and wider community’.

8.It duplicates existing Council office space and thus falls short of the objective of the B3 Commercial Core Zone to ‘encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations’.

9.It is disruptive to the streetscape rhythm in that it is out of character with the nearby development, provides an unsafe arcade and fails to meet the objective of the B3 Commercial Core Zone to ‘ensure that the design of new commercial buildings makes a positive contribution to the streetscape through opportunities for improved pedestrian links, retention and creation of view corridors and the provision of a safe public domain’.

10.It conflicts with the streetscape in Gordon Street in that the proposed building is outside the context of this street having regard to the scale, existing street setbacks, design and general form of the adjoining buildings.

11.It will have a profoundly adverse impact upon the heritage significance of the adjoining Uniting Church in that the building’s bulk, mass and general design ignore that significance.

12.It does not meet the safer by design principles and guidelines as it provides a covered arcade between Riding Land and Gordon Street that jumbles territorial space, provides cover for potential criminal activity and prevents good surveillance.

13.It exceeds the height limit of 28 m. set down by Council and an exception is not justified.


In the past two years I have not made any reportable political donations.


Yours sincerely,



NAME Mr & Mrs J.R.Ingham

I fully support the build of the Coffs Harbour Cultural & Arts Centre. It will be a major benefit for our members and guests who have the need to use a suitable facility on a month to month basis.

I strongly object to Coffs Harbour council's proposal to construct the Civic & Cultural Centre which includes new council chambers. The current council chambers are more than adequate for the foreseeable future. In fact I understand that the area allocated in the new development for the council is less than the area currently in use by the council. I have no objection to the council building a new library, art gallery and museum, however not on the proposed site.
In addition, the location for the proposed development in Gordon Street is totally inappropriate. Parking during business hours in Gordon Street is already at a premium and the proposed development will only add to the CBD congestion.
I also fear that the rate payers of Coffs Harbour will be burdened with substantial coast if the project proceeds both in costs to finalise the project and maintenance cost.
At the outset I believe that the council were negligent in that they promoted the plan to construct a civic centre with rarely mentioning that the proposal included new council chambers. In fact many people believe the the new 'Cutural and Civic Centre' would include and entertainment centre, a facility which the council promised the people of Coffs many years ago when they sold the hen entertainment centre to the local RSL club.
The proposed new facility will not attracted any more people into the CBD, the current council chambers, library and art gallery are within a short walk from the proposed new site. The proposed new building will be way out of place given the surrounding infrastructure in Gordon Street.
This proposal to re house the Coffs council is simply a waste of tax payers / rate payers money. The idea of building these facilities in Gordon Street is utter madness.

I fully support this submission. Coffs Harbour is far behind other cities of its size in provision of modern, attractive and community focussed facilities that this proposal will provide. Coffs Harbour has little to offer our young people, especially those less able to support themselves. These facilities are long overdue in providing a place to learn, create, and meet. The city centre businesses have been working hard to improve the CBD, and our community should support them by supporting the development of a cultural community space in the heart of Coffs.
Lastly, I remember how long it took to improve the Jetty foreshores, yet now it has happened the space is a hive of activity and feels safe late into the evening. Please do not be swayed by those who can not see change as a benefit unless it is their way, they are the noisy minority in our community.

I think the Council Offices should remain in their current premises and reconsideration given to inclusion of a performance space in the proposed development but only on the proviso that absolute assurances can be given that any repayment of financial loans taken to fund the project can be met without the need for rate increases in the future to cover the cost of repaying these loans (principal and/or interest).

I object to the project because of the dishonesty from the current Coffs Harbour council regarding the new council chambers being added to this project.
Denise Knight was elected because of her then stance on Coffs Harbour getting a Performance Venue. She seems to have changed her mind after the fact.
This has been a long on going heartfelt wish for many Coffs Harbour residents since the 1980's, when that council sold public owned property - the Civic Centre to the CEX for their car park with the promise of building another performance venue to replace what was lost then.
We do not want or support any proposed performance venue that the CEX may build. An alcohol and gambling venue is no place for children's activities such as school socials, Eistedfords or dance studio's and the like. We lost a publicly owned venue and we demand one in return.
To include the new council chambers at the expense of the performance venue is unconscionable.
So is doing secret deals with profit making organisations to provide the performance venue in lieu of.
The people of Coffs Harbour have waited a very long time and are in no mood to wait further, which will happen if this project goes ahead.
I fail to see how a new council chambers will encourage or grow the prosperity of the CBD, whereas a decent performance venue would attract world class performers, stimulate our local Arts environment, artists/performers and participators, stimulate and enliven the CBD and create untold employment (something sorely needed in this area).
I and many others signed a petition against this project and instead of engaging respectfully to resolve the situation, Denise Knight and cohorts have been condescending in their attempts to defend going ahead with a project that not everyone sees the value of. No wonder people are upset.
Public consultation was not really all that engaging of the majority of townsfolk when only certain interest groups were engaged and asked their opinion. Council could do better to meaningfully engage for true community consultation. They don't hesitate to bombard our letter boxes with multitudes glossy pamphlets come election time.
Also the area they are proposing for such a large building is not ideal but I'm going to let that slide if the compromise can be performance venue in place of council chambers.
It's the more urgent and longer awaited and better value for money and community.

The Coffs Harbour City Council Claims that parking for staff and visitors to the Cultural and Civic Centre will be adequately provided for by the existing multilevel car parks. However this is not supported by the file "ATT11_Coffs_Harbour_City_Centre_Car_Parking_Study_2017.pdf". There has been no parking study on the existing use of visitor parking spaces at the current library, gallery and museum sites and no survey of Council staff who drive to work and do not currently use the spaces under Rigby House for parking. If Council staff from Rigby House, Council Chambers Building and Marcia St are all to converge at the proposed Cultural and Civic Space as well as all visitors to cultural facilities and to general business clients/residents, as well as users of a new dining business, are to find parking, this will impact on the efficiency of the parking lots referred to in the Study. The Study's proposed action plan is to reduce the time limitations of on street parking and increase parking fees. It is not clear in the Study if increasing fees means introducing new technology parking metres at the kerb and entry fees via a boom gate to the multilevel parking stations (as has been the case at the Coffs Harbour Health Campus) or if it means increasing parking fines. If the community are to enjoy the benefits of gallery, library and museum, dining and other Council Services it is likely the time of stay will increase, not decrease. Council needs to be transparent about how the revenue from parking "fees" will be used and if this is an actual expense to visitors and Council staff we are not aware of. Is a user pays parking solution the hidden cost of locating the Cultural and Civic Centre in the CBD? Also they need to consider the impact of introducing parking fees to the CBD retail traders who are in competition with Park Beach Plaza retailers, where there are is already no parking fee and ample parking for shoppers. There will no doubt be losses of currently available parking spaces in Gordon Street in front of the site which will by necessity be converted to loading zones, set down areas, taxi stands /bus zones. There is also no information given to the public about whether 75 spaces for Council vehicles under the proposed Cultural and Civic Centre are equal to or greater than the number of spaces currently under Rigby House, at Marcia Street or Vernon Street. However I would estimate that 75 spaces for Council vehicles does not allow much room for a growing requirements as the urban sprawl of Coffs Harbour increases 30 years into the future. Of course what we all know is that most of the underground parking for Council vehicles really means for Executive Staff, not Council Assets. To conclude my submission, this Cultural & Civic Space could detract from the amenity of all the CBD has to offer by creating a parking problem that is at best too expensive for users and at worst destructive to the CBD commercial precinct. It is likely that the City Hill site (which was gifted to the city for cultural purposes) will end up becoming a huge free parking station, because we will all need to park far from the edge of the commercial area if we want to spend 3-4 hours in the Cultural and Civic Centre attending a major exhibition like the Archibald Prize, a convention, or conference, or a touring collection of antiquities. The CBD multi level parking spaces will be at maximum levels during the opening hours of gallery, museum and library and at peak trading times like pre-Christmas shoppers are likely to go to Park Beach Plaza. This is the consequence of combining all Council Offices under one roof in the heart of the CBD. It is also why there is considerable support in the community for building the Cultural & Civic Centre at City Hill which would save us all walking 10 minutes from our cars with no cover protection from rain/sun & children and parcels in tow to attend the Museum, Library or Art Gallery. If Council could provide a covered, moving footway or buslink to convey visitors to and from an additional parking station on the outskirts of the CBD they would be more responsible than expecting us all to pay fees or rush out to move our cars every 1/2 hour to avoid the devastating impact of a parking fine on our already stretched household budgets.

I am writing to note my objection to this project in its current form.
My concerns are centred around the lack of a performing arts venue in the current plan. I believe any new cultural hub planned for Coffs harbour must include an indoor entertainment venue of sufficient size for touring musical and performing arts acts to use.
The current plan includes a new Museum, a new Library and new Council chambers. All three of these we already have. However we do not have an indoor entertainment centre that can accommodate musical performers. Take Elton John for example. Early next year, this show will be coming to Coffs harbour and it will be an outdoor concert at the mercy of the elements.
At the heart of my disapproval of the current project is the apparent need for new Council chambers. I do not see why this has been included into this project at the expense of an entertainment venue.
The current Council chambers are still fit for purpose. I can only assume the current councillors and sitting Mayor see them as outdated and not to their liking? I think a far more feasible solution would be to refurbish the existing chambers.
It is hard to determine the reasons the Mayor wants these new chambers so badly as community consultation to this point has been minimal. The mayor has also been quoted as using quite condescending language towards other councillors who oppose this project in its current form. "put on your big boy pants and make a decision" i think was the statement.
Another item with the financing of this project seriously concerns me. To fund this project, the council proposes a large loan, and selling of existing council building to help repay. I am concerned that the value placed on these buildings are not accurate as they do not take into account the fact that the chambers, museum and library buildings have very customised fit out and I believe these will be difficult to sell at the current valuations.
If this proves to be correct, I can see the City's debt and the costs of the project blowing out beyond the $70m+ it is quoted at costing. (estimated).
This coupled with the fact there will be no performing arts space to act as a revenue stream to assist with the ongoing costs of operating the venue, I fear ratepayers will be bearing the cost of this monument to the current council for decades to come.
Please, I request that the NSW government steps in and investigates the validity and feasibility of this project. Thank you.

I feel that moving the council chambers from a building that is already fit for expansion at very minimal cost is a waste of money.
I also feel that the exclusion of a performing arts space limits the life of the build resulting in more spending in the near future and also limits the income to pay back the loan on the build.
I also disagree with the lack of additional parking to the CBD as I have already find it difficult personally to park for more then 2 hours in the CBD and walking long distances to attend with my children will be unrealistic resulting in non attendance.
I feel this project lacks long term thinking and the build cost is excessive & without government grants that will save our community money.

My objection to this project is based on the lack of transparency the has been part of the planning process and the details of cost and the alterations to outcomes that have been hidden from ratepayer scrutiny until the final plans were available. As it stands I do not believe the proposed building is 'fit for purpose'. I object to the building being taken over as new council offices and I strongly object to the amalgamation of our museum and library into the limited space available in the structure. I believe the proposed building does not adequately provide for parking or access for residents and I don't believe this aspect has been fully explored. I object to the fact that as a ratepayer I will be financing the council to build a monument to itself that does nothing for the community and saddles us with a debt that is increasing as each month passes.
I do not believe there has been full and open disclosure about the cost and implications of changes to the original concepts by the council and general manager to the ratepayers of this community. It appears there have been deals done with 'those with vested interests' in acquiring council assets in the city centre, assets which have already been listed for sale before this grandiose building has been approved. The feeling that our mayor and the general manager are committed to pushing this development through without regard to the needs of the community are painfully evident and appears to lack any concern or regard to the what the community and ratepayers are saying.

I support the project because:
It is an outstanding architectural design which will set a very high benchmark for other new developments in the CBD in the future.
The design supports environmental principles.
It is in the right location in the heart of the city close to public transport, services, retail opportunities and government departments. It will help grow cultural choice, literacy levels and educational opportunities, as well as providing improved local government services to the community and encouraging more environmentally-friendly transport.
The business case that underpins the development has been thoroughly scrutinised and is sound.

The project will not provide what it was originally approved for, which is an entertainment centre. This component seems to have been usurped by new Council offices. The existing Council offices were only constructed in the early 1980's and were built with the potential to be added to, but the current Council is intent on selling them. Where they will find a buyer is anyone's guess.
The location of the project is totally wrong. It is jammed onto a conglomeration of 3-4 house blocks, between a church and other housing that has been converted to office spaces by small professional businesses. It will be a quite amazing looking building in the middle of mediocrity. The original location for the entertainment centre, purchased by previous Council, on City Hill will remain a languishing asset. City Hill would be just ideal - plenty of land, room for parking etc.
Parking!! - There is none provided for public use in the plan, they are relying on another carpark which is close by but is already at limit most days, and very much at limit during school holidays and pre Xmas. It's a nightmare layout with tiny car spaces. How does a development application by Council not have to adhere to the parking requirements that any other developer would have to?
Traffic - the project will front a street that is already congested and will back onto a one-way laneway.
The cost - Council proposes to sell existing properties to finance part of this project, but what if they can't find buyers? There are cheaper options for sure and ratepayers are the ones who will be left with the bills, because this Council will not re re-elected.
Given the way this project has just morphed out of this Council, it is highly likely that the entire building will morph into new Council offices only. I can see the library, art gallery and museum being moved into the existing Council Chambers.
I am one of many unhappy ratepayers. This cannot wait til the next Council election - that will be too late to stop the waste of money that is happening now. The Mayor has taken out full page advertisements and done a mail out stating 'facts' and 'myth busting'. What a waste, when she has the print and television media happy to have interviews, etc.
Do not let this development proceed. In fact, how about investigating the processes this Council and the General Manager have followed here??

The project is not taking into account the planning of the centre of Coffs Harbour-If a civic square is to considered then why is it not going to being considered to be built down near the Jetty- A link with buses to and from the centre to the Jetty is sensible. As a rate payer my money should be spent on kerb and guttering/infrastructure that supports the local community. I have lived in a few cities in Australia and the Civic squares are usually only used by the people who are in the adjoining buildings and used for getting out of the office to have breaks. The money should be spent on developing the Jetty and infrastructure- for example I lived at Sandy Beach and the roadside drains which are catchment areas when we have heavy rain they back up of water is dangerous to the buildings in the area. The grass is so long in these areas that it prevents water getting away and draining the area. I saw it mowed once in one year. I feel it is wrong to spend the money on the civic square -I feel that if the building is modern and state of the art do you think people such as locals are going to come and look sure for the first few weeks then no one will be interested and they will go back to shopping in their local areas such as the Plaza-Toormina and Sawtell.
The rate payers need to see what the actual cost is going to be I heard that it was going to cost $6000 per square foot and how many square feet is the building. Also ow much is the fitout going to cost, floor coverings etc -bathrooms-office spaces furniture-
I bet the cost will blow out over $100 million the council has not wright to go ahead without a referendum and voting for this space
We are not in Sydney or Melbourne were there are millions of people get a grip we have approx 80000 people if that

We already have council offices, an art gallery, a library, and open spaces to use in Coffs Harbour.

All this proposal is doing, is spending money on something we already have, and what few people actually utilise, and whom are not immediately surrounding the proposed site.

I do not know too many people that travel from outside the cbd of Coffs Harbour, that utilise any of the existing buildings that already provide these services, and as such, it is only a minority of ratepayers that will use the proposed centre.

It was not long ago that this Council sought and won approval for an additional ratepayer hike, citing difficulty in maintaining and providing infrastructure for all the areas of council responsibility throughout their ratepayer boundary, yet here we are spending $70 odd million dollars, on one simple uneeded precinct.

Council needs to maintain more thrust in proving for the basic needs of all its ratepayers, not just for those in one small areas. There is already, plenty of need for more council spending on areas such as footpaths, sealed roads, water and sewerage services to those areas without same, and concentrate funds to the simple needs of all ratepayers.

As a ratepayer and rural resident, I see no benefit to myself in this proposal, or those others around me, that receive little benefit already from the rates we pay council.

This proposal does not assist/benefit ratepayers in any particular way, and thus should be stopped, and the monies proposed, used instead, for providing simple ratepayer needed resources that benefit us all, yet are still not available to all ratepayers.

Thank you.

I object to this proposal and desire and request that a public hearing be held.

The reasons why I object to this proposal are:

1. The location of the building being in a commercial part of the CBD and restricted access to open landscaping or parkland.

2. The location of the building on a street other than a major road linking the CBD to other significant parts of the Local Government Area.

3. The 3 storey element creating the need for costly expenditure on such things as lifts, fire stairs, formwork, scaffolding, cranes and external maintenance and cleaning.

4. Inadequate parking internally and externally.

5. Congestion of travel modes to and from and within the vicinity of the development.

6. It is not in the public interest as it is not economically sustainable providing for unnecessary office space for Council staff and does not provide for the best and highest use of public land.

7. It provides for unnecessary office space for Council and therefore fails to meet an objective of the B3 Commercial Core Zone to ‘provide a suitable land use that serves the needs of the local and wider community’.



8. It duplicates existing Council office space and thus falls short of the objective of the B3 Commercial Core Zone to ‘encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations’.

9. It is disruptive to the streetscape rhythm in that it is out of character with the nearby development, provides an unsafe arcade and fails to meet the objective of the B3 Commercial Core Zone to ‘ensure that the design of new commercial buildings makes a positive contribution to the streetscape through opportunities for improved pedestrian links, retention and creation of view corridors and the provision of a safe public domain’.

10. It conflicts with the streetscape in Gordon Street in that the proposed building is outside the context of this street having regard to the scale, existing street setbacks, design and general form of the adjoining buildings.

11. It will have a profoundly adverse impact upon the heritage significance of the adjoining Uniting Church in that the building’s bulk, mass and general design ignore that significance.

12. It does not meet the safer by design principles and guidelines as it provides a covered arcade between Riding Land and Gordon Street that jumbles territorial space, provides cover for potential criminal activity and prevents good surveillance.

13. It exceeds the height limit of 28 m. set down by Council and an exception is not justified.


In the past two years I have not made any reportable political donations.

State Significant Development Application Number SSD-10300.
Coffs Harbour Cultural and Civic Space.

I object to this proposal and desire and request that a public hearing be held.

The reasons why I object to this proposal are:

1. The location of the building being in a commercial part of the CBD and restricted access to open landscaping or parkland.

2. The location of the building on a street other than a major road linking the CBD to other significant parts of the Local Government Area.

3. The 3 storey element creating the need for costly expenditure on such things as lifts, fire stairs, formwork, scaffolding, cranes and external maintenance and cleaning.

4. Inadequate parking internally and externally.

5. Congestion of travel modes to and from and within the vicinity of the development.

6. It is not in the public interest as it is not economically sustainable providing for unnecessary office space for Council staff and does not provide for the best and highest use of public land.

7. It provides for unnecessary office space for Council and therefore fails to meet an objective of the B3 Commercial Core Zone to ‘provide a suitable land use that serves the needs of the local and wider community’.



8. It duplicates existing Council office space and thus falls short of the objective of the B3 Commercial Core Zone to ‘encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations’.

9. It is disruptive to the streetscape rhythm in that it is out of character with the nearby development, provides an unsafe arcade and fails to meet the objective of the B3 Commercial Core Zone to ‘ensure that the design of new commercial buildings makes a positive contribution to the streetscape through opportunities for improved pedestrian links, retention and creation of view corridors and the provision of a safe public domain’.

10. It conflicts with the streetscape in Gordon Street in that the proposed building is outside the context of this street having regard to the scale, existing street setbacks, design and general form of the adjoining buildings.

11. It will have a profoundly adverse impact upon the heritage significance of the adjoining Uniting Church in that the building’s bulk, mass and general design ignore that significance.

12. It does not meet the safer by design principles and guidelines as it provides a covered arcade between Riding Land and Gordon Street that jumbles territorial space, provides cover for potential criminal activity and prevents good surveillance.

13. It exceeds the height limit of 28 m. set down by Council and an exception is not justified.
In the past two years I have not made any reportable political donations.

Should not be placed in the city centre, no parking for school buses for excursions etc., not even a drop off / pick-up point. The whole complex should be placed at City Hill where is was intended to go many years ago and have an entertainment / amphitheatre type facility as well. Plenty of parking, open spaces, gardens, some coffee shops etc. Look ahead 50 years, not 10 years and provide a facility which will cater for the community long term. City Hill is not a great distance from the City Centre, a stroll through Brelsford Park and one block along Albany Street (and the Cartoon Bunker Gallery is already there). That distance to walk in a major City would be a luxury and of course public transport to the site would be provided as well.